Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

National Litigation Hotline

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
June 27, 2005

Class May Pursue Claims Against Company That Hired Illegal Workers to Lower Wages

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held that a class of employees alleging that defendant Mohawk Industries hired illegal workers in a conspiracy to lower wages for all employees and cut back on workers' compensation claims may proceed with their lawsuit. Williams v. Mohawk Indus. Inc., 2005 WL 1355512 (11th Cir. June 9).

Four Mohawk employees filed suit in early 2004 on behalf of a potential class of nearly 1000 hourly employees against Mohawk, alleging that the company and third-party temporary staffing agencies and recruiters engaged in conspiracy to violate federal law. Specifically, the employees claimed that Mohawk and the other entities conspired within the meaning of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),to violate immigration laws by harboring illegal workers, destroying documentation, and accepting false documents (such as fake drivers licenses) from job applicants as proof of employment eligibility. Some illegal workers who left the company were urged by Mohawk to return; others who had left returned to Mohawk under different names. The workers further alleged that the purpose of the conspiracy was to suppress wages and reduce workers' compensation costs at the company's Summerville, GA, plant. Mohawk moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' conspiracy claims, but the trial court refused. The trial court also permitted the plaintiffs to proceed with an unjust enrichment claim based on wages and dismissed a claim relating to unjust enrichment arising out of the employees' workers' compensation allegations. Mohawk appealed the decision of the trial court.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?